ATLDave
-
Posts
581 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by ATLDave
-
-
23 hours ago, jebeckjr said:
So, with all this said, what are the specific steps to tune the Tanfo to be a highly reliable performer? Saying “it needs to be tuned to work” is one thing, but specifically what / how needs t be done?
Sent from my iPad using TapatalkDepends on the individual gun. Some/many run from the box, some don't.
-
Can you use Tanfo tubes and extensions, or just the MBX tubes? There's an OK big-stick solution for Tanfo 9mm open guys - factory tube, Taylor Freelance 171 extended base.
-
4 hours ago, bulm540 said:
They are out of stock though.
And have been for about a year. Very frustrating.
-
17 hours ago, shred said:
At the time of Limited's formation, there was still a large contingent that believed in the original purpose of IPSC -- "all pistols compete together equally, let the best ones win".
Right. USPSA is fundamentally "experimental" in terms of equipment. There are certain parameters imposed, but within those parameters, it is a feature, not a bug, that equipment can evolve.
Where evolution of gear, or realization by shooters that something is advantageous (such as production shooters realizing that heavy frame weight actually helps a lot of people versus lighter polymer frames), causes a shift in gear, that's consistent with the spirit and intent of the game. Making affirmative rule changes that obsolete a bunch of gear overnight seems rather obviously to be different.
-
3 hours ago, dsb said:
Isn't that essentially what happened when they allowed the 2011's into Limited? Both the 1911 shooters and the 9mm double stack shooters were screwed.
My personal history with USPSA doesn't go back that far, but I don't think any step was taken to affirmatively "allow" it. As I understand it, the original gun rules were very, very loose, and there were no divisions. A large number of technical innovations came about, including some that were considered so advantageous that they needed to be set aside as a special division - or, rather, that everything not using those particular innovations would be "protected" from them in a separate division. That's how limited and open were created.
So there wasn't ever a rule change, to my knowledge, that "allowed" 2011's. At some point they were "invented" or adopted by lots of USPSA shooters, and the rules didn't specifically exclude them from limited. The technology changed (or was adopted), but not the rules. At least that's my understanding.
I think that's quite a bit different than affirmatively changing existing rules. Also, USPSA is a heck of a lot bigger today in terms of participants - and in terms of total dollars sunk into gear complying with existing rules - than it was way back when.
-
Changing division rules is generally dumb because it usually screws the people who are already most-invested in a division. Screwing current stakeholders in the hopes that it will attract some additional people who aren't as invested is risky, and perhaps a d!ck move.
This is particularly true when it comes to any iron-sighted division. I think the trends of the last 3 years show that all the iron-sight divisions are going to eventually recede into the distance. People taking up shooting now are increasingly likely to rely on dots from the beginning. Iron sights will go the way of stick shift cars... something some of us old guys like, but not something that is even relatable to most younger people.
So screwing a bunch of old guys when any iron sight division is going to be a nostalgia division in the not-too-distant future is doubly dumb. If you want to shoot factory 9mm ammo and not have to worry about reloading a million times per stage, just go ahead and slap a dot on the slide. It's what you're going to do in a couple of years anyway... no reason to go screw with the limited shooters.
-
It probably doesn't break at the rate of the TRS on double actions simply because it isn't subjected to as much winding/unwinding due to the shorter travel.
But I've broken a TRS on a SAO Tanfoglio with a similar spring. It's just a tightly packed thing that is under considerable tension (also makes reassembly a little bit of a pain). After that, I switched to the Henning trigger which uses an entirely different trigger return spring design - instead of coiling around the trigger pin in a very confined space, it sits in a pocket at the front of the trigger itself and just pushes against the frame in a low-stress manner. Reassembly is also easier with it.
None of these are huge issues. I was just responding to the irrelevant point that DA Tanfo pulls are (perhaps) more even than CZ DA pulls. Since this thread is about limited guns, where SA is all that counts, and SAO guns in particular are being discussed, I was pointing out a difference that is at least relevant. Whether it's material? IDK.
I went with the Tanfo Limited (non-Xtreme) before the TSO even existed. I've played with TSO's and they're also fantastic. I don't think there's any wrong answer to the question. They're all great, and people should go with whichever one they happen to like better (or can get a better deal on or can try in person or whatever).
-
23 minutes ago, motosapiens said:
limited, just sayin'....
Yep. A more valid answer would be that you can replace the factory trigger on a single-action Tanfo with the Henning flat trigger, which completely eliminates the broken trigger return spring issue that can hit CZ's and factory-trigger Tanfoglios.
-
I sent the whole gun back. I got a whole new one in return.
-
On 10/26/2019 at 7:26 PM, happygunner77 said:
DA for tanfo is smoother and predictable.
This is about single-action-only guns for limited.
The SAO trigger in a Tanfoglio limited can be gotten every bit as good as the TSO, but the TSO will more reliably have a great trigger OOTB. I don't know how the Xtreme version of the Tanfo does in that regard. But ~$1k for a base Tanfo' Limited plus, say, $250 for a Henning flat trigger and an EGW hammer/sear and a trigger job is still leaves you a lot of money compared to either the TSO or the Xtreme.
-
15 hours ago, Rigidman said:
I'm interested in an EAA Tangfolio Witness in .40 s&w. I was told the problems have been resolved. It's a 2017 manufacture. From what I've read these are older weapons, or is the problem still ongoing. sounds like they're having problems in the molding process. Maybe pouring a too cool molten metal. Possibly the mold is too thin in certain areas. I may just buy a new Tristar in 9mm. Prefer the .40. I Also prefer steel frames. if you can update me on this problem I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
I wouldn't worry about this issue at all. As I wrote above, I did have a Match (in 10mm) that cracked at this spot... which made no difference to how it shot. Once I finally noticed it, I sent it in and EAA sent me a new gun. I've put a lot of rounds through the replacement (again, in 10mm), including a lot considerably hotter than any .40 load.
-
I understand that, and, yet, people are very attached to the USPSA-style target for a reason.
How do you feel about my hypothetical target fragment stage? You fired up to shoot a bunch of triangles and hexagons cut out of targets?
-
The dumbness of a disembodied head-portion of a target superimposed on another is not sufficiently self-evident?
Ok, fine, let's consider what happens if people decide this is a suitable target presentation. Imagine that next match there are randomly-shaped fragments of cardboard targets, each cut to include 25+% of the A-zone stapled over another target... triangular fragments. Or circular fragments, with the A-zone comprising the left 1/3 of the circle. Does that sound like fun? Do you want to see that? What would the point be?
-
57 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:
@ATLDave to put it differently:
1911s and Tanfos do not work great until you mess with them.
Glocks and M&Ps and such run great... until you mess with them.
Yep. The latter are intended as commodity consumer items. The former are enthusiast items.
-
1 hour ago, HCH said:
I don’t see how this is any more stupid than having two targets side-by-side with all but the upper scoring area blacked out or covered with a no-shoot.
“Aiming is hard”
This has nothing to do with shot difficulty. It has to do with a disembodied head in the middle of one target.
As you note, the actual shot difficulty and challenge is no different than other common target presentations. That's part of what makes this so stupid... there's literally nothing that is gained from it.
-
1 hour ago, RJH said:
It's actually just a headshot Target, nothing to get all bent out of shape about
It's a disembodied headshot target floating inside the body of another target. It's idiotic.
If my memory serves, IPSC specifically prohibits target presentations like this. I always thought USPSA shooters were smart enough to know this was a dumb idea without a rule.
I was wrong.
-
What a stupid idea. This is "clown's mouth" stuff.
When stage designers have no concept of what actually makes stages interesting, you get nonsense like this.
-
Many of us in the Atlanta area would argue that the monthly River Bend Gun Club match is on par with most Level II's - lots of GM's, usually 8-9 stages of very high quality, etc.
If you can't "line up" your visit with a true major, try to time it to coincide with the RBGC monthly. It really is an outstanding match.
-
On 10/12/2019 at 12:30 AM, lfine said:
I don’t seem to hear much talk or see at matches much in the way of the Tanfo long slides like the Match Extreme Custom .40.
Any reason for that I’m missing? Is it just cost?What kind of matches?
For USPSA/IPSC, few people want an iron-sighted 6" gun. The accuracy demands aren't that stringent, so a 4.5"-5" sight radius is enough. The power factor requirements aren't hard to hit with .40, so there's no need for extra barrel. You're just adding a lot of weight out front. The huge majority of people don't want that because of slower handling, and find that the extra recoil reduction isn't worth the tradeoff past about 5".
-
19 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:
But once you get a Tanfo set up, it runs and runs. I cleaned mine perhaps every 3,000 rounds. I just kept it lubed. They absolutely run just as filthy as a Glock or Walther will, on crappy ammo, if you don’t go light on the springs.
Amen. A lot of people really struggle with the duality of the guns being a little iffy OOB, but totally reliable if/once set up properly.
When it comes to many consumer goods, most guns included, the factory condition is the most reliable it will ever be. "Upgrades" by users generally either keep reliability the same (best case), or degrade it. If that's your baseline experience, it's really strange to encounter a product where the inverse is true - user customization/tuning, if done properly, can enhance the reliability.
-
20 hours ago, jebeckjr said:
I guess what really has me stumped is should I have to “tune” a stock pistol to eject properly?
If the gun gets the empty case the f*** out of the chamber and clear of the gun well enough for the next round to reliably chamber, then it is "eject[ing] properly."
If you have a preference on which direction and how far the case goes, then, yes, you may have to tune any particular gun to give you that. Just decide if your preference makes it worth fooling with. There's no wrong answer to that question, so there's no reason to be "stumped" by it.
-
On 9/27/2019 at 2:10 PM, MikeBurgess said:
you and your gear must be in division compliance at the start signal. Just like you have to be in the correct position so does your gear, after the start signal solve the stage however you want.
I think this is a very interesting idea and has some intuitive appeal to me. It does raise a few questions:
If we make this like start position issues, and it turns out 8 stages in to a 10 stage match that a competitor has been started all day in wrong gear conditions for their division, are they forced to reshoot all 8 stages? Can they (or the MD?) opt to bump to open instead?
Also, does this cover all aspects of gear?
-
18 hours ago, ajblack said:
I agree, but I wasn't really trying to hash out MD decision making processes. I was just trying to determine the legality of that requirement.
Understood. It's just funny how many of the questionably or plainly illegal stage designs/stage descriptions/stage instructions arise because of a misguided attempt to "force" this or that. If you don't try to "force" things, it's quite easy to stay within the rules. It only gets "tricky" to design legal stages when the MD is determined to find some way to fit a "force" requirement into the stage.
It's almost as if the rules on course design were written specifically to discourage MD's from taking a "force" approach to their designs! Eventually most MD's get the hint, but it's very common for newer MD's to go through a phase of excessive "forcing."
-
1 hour ago, jstagn said:
so shooters would be forced to shoot around the no shoot instead of leaning and falling out of the box to shoot the last target.
But why is that even a desirable objective?
And if it is, why not just use TWO targets that require a lean such that shooting all the required shots while falling becomes impracticable? Or comes with a major time loss, as people fall out of the box and then have to get back in to fall out again? Or make the 2nd target a mini-popper, such that trying to squeeze in the 3rd shot while falling becomes a massive risk/reward decision?
Why are some people so bent on making people shoot something a particular way?
Match with no classifier
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
Classifiers are usually the worst, most boring stage in a match. I wish more monthly matches would feel free to ditch them from time to time.